Design Research Society DRS Digital Library DRS Biennial Conference Series DRS2014 - Design's Big Debates Jun 16th, 12:00 AM Social Design Principles and Practices Inês Veiga Faculty of Architecture, University of Lisbon, Portugal Rita Almendra Faculty of Architecture, University of Lisbon, Portugal Follow this and additional works at: https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers Citation Veiga, I., and Almendra, R. (2014) Social Design Principles and Practices, in Lim, Y., Niedderer, K., Redstrom,̈ J., Stolterman, E. and Valtonen, A. (eds.), Design's Big Debates - DRS International Conference 2014, 16-19 June, Umea,̊ Sweden. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2014/ researchpapers/42 This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Conference Proceedings at DRS Digital Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in DRS Biennial Conference Series by an authorized administrator of DRS Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Social Design Principles and Practices Inês Veiga, Faculty of Architecture, University of Lisbon, Portugal Rita Almendra, Faculty of Architecture, University of Lisbon, Portugal Abstract Last century, a new design area bond with new aims and principles emerged, committed to answer more urgent and relevant needs of humanity. Multiple terms come forward to identify it and because there isn't a unifying language among its practitioners, questions have been raised about whether they refer to a general area in design or to single design practices. This “social” vocabulary, caused so far enormous controversy and dispersion of this area in design that wants – and today it needs – to assert itself practically and theoretically. In this paper, we propose to clarify some of these questions. By searching in written records we intend to analyse how “social” design practitioners identify and describe their work and approach, while aiming to better understand this area and discipline the existing multiplicity. Moreover, the aim of this paper is to verify the possibility of encompassing all expressions – and practices, if demonstrated – into a single umbrella term that can include all the disparity between them and simultaneously reinforce their similarities. This will lead to a more concise and precise identification and recognition of this area and its practitioners, helping to build a stronger case for its assertion. Keywords Social Design Principles; Social Design Practices; Social Design Taxonomy One should never forget the essence of design: solving human problems. This foundational aim has had along the last 60 years different materialisations and ways of action on the part of designers. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, the dominant paradigm in design has been the economic market and the creation of products and goods for sale and consumption. But 60 years ago a series of transformations occurred in the field and scope of design that changed the nature of what design is today. As a reaction to the established paradigm while acknowledging the share of responsibility design had so far in fairly compromising the future of both planet and humanity, designers began to search for ways through their work – problems, processes and solutions – to become more meaningful, relevant, useful and committed to society (Press & Cooper 2003). Believing design could do much more then only fulfilling market needs and could turn into a valid process or mode of action to answer more complex problems related to other needs of humanity – social, ecological, environmental, political and cultural – the act of designing gained a new meaning and a new area in design emerged (Papanek, 2005; Simon, 1996; Erlhoff & Marshall, 2008; Norman, 2010). This new area was marked by a clear social agenda, addressing problems or issues related with human injustice, poverty, cohesion, inequality, lack of basic living conditions, health issues, marginalisation, education, etcetera, and making design closer and widely accessible to individuals and organisations who otherwise and up until that point couldn't attain or afford it (Margolin & Margolin 2002). But this focus on social life or human experience issues did not exclude the context in which these lives and experiences happened. So in the design process of solving or answering social problems, needs or issues, all other systems – environmental, cultural, political, economical – came to be included and thought of because only this way, some authors advocate, the design actions and outputs could be socially responsible, successful and finally sustainable (Shedroff, 2009; Erlhoff & Marshall, 2008). Due to the application of key aspects of design – disciplines, process, thinking, skills, etc. – to these new unconventional territories, the design methods and outputs were far from tradition resulting in the appearance of various practices bond with new intrinsic aims: change, transform or innovate (Cottam, Burns, Vanstone & Winhall 2006; Shedroff 2009). However, according to some authors, only today the transition to other sectors in society is complete and we can speak concretely about designers who are actively working, proposing and testing in collaboration with all disciplines, actors, stakeholders and beneficiaries, new alternatives and solutions that effectively transform difficult, complex and critical situations into more preferred and desired ones (Simon, 1996; Sachetti, 2011; Thackara, 2005, Nussbaum 2005). Although these alternative models and solutions are emerging everywhere at all times (Thackara, 2005), “social” design practitioners have failed to translate and articulate their process and also describe clearly what they do (Lasky, 2013). Therefore, nowadays this new area in design is shrouded in great controversy, doubt and ambiguity due to a multitude of terms and expressions that came into view to identify and describe it, such as: Social Design, Design for the Base/Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP), Humanitarian Design, Design as Development Aid, Socially Responsible Design or Socially Responsive Design, Design for Social Good, Design for Social Change, Design for Social Impact, Design for Social Innovation, Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability, Social Economic Environmental Design, Useful Design, Transformation Design, Design for Public Good, etcetera. This abundance of expressions makes clear that there isn't a common language or unifying discourse among these practitioners (Drake & Drenttel 2011; Lasky, 2013). In fact, as some authors advocate, it's difficult to document and handle “social” projects, processes, and outputs because there is a lack of sensibility, appropriate vocabulary, a good evidence base or even a pattern of reference (Bedell, 2005; Meroni, 2007; Cottam et al., 2006; Drake & Drenttel 2011). As Bedell (2005) states: “you can photograph a new car for a magazine; you can't photograph new traffic flows through a city.” What's interesting is that this was reported last year in the “Social Impact Design Summit” where designers stated that the lack of a clear definition and identification of this “social” design practice posed a communication barrier and instead of promoting collaboration and sharing of experiences it has been encouraging competition and dispersion (Lasky, 2013). Moreover, questions arise about the real meaning of all these terms i.e. if they refer themselves to a general area in design or to single design practices? Assuming we are talking about single practices, what are the differences between them? Are they actually consequences and materialisations of the same foundational aim and principles? Can they be incorporated in a general area in design? So this multiplicity needs to be better understood and disciplined. Social Design Social Design is the most generally and commonly used term in the discourse of designers to describe and identify this area or practice and is often used interchangeably with others. This is the term we believe has great potential to be the single umbrella term that could serve as the “name” for this area. The reasons are that it immediately identifies the realm and scope of action of design and it is a holistic and open term. Since designing is about solving problems and answering needs, the word “social” directly points out problems, needs or issues related with society, groups of people, communities, individuals, citizens, humans... However, these “social” problems, needs or issues are not often just “social”, they are “cultural”, “environmental”, “economical” and “political” too. Yet these are all inherent aspects of the human condition and since they are all produced by society or at least society has a responsibility upon them – environmental –, ultimately they can all be considered as a “social” matter. Perhaps, what is missing in “Social Design” is the aspect of change or transformation, or even innovation. But design itself, is a process of changing or transforming ideas into reality and things into new, or at least different, things. Curiously, the German word for design “Gestaltung” is defined by Erlhoff & Marshall (2008, p.190) in their Design Dictionary as “an intervention in an environment that deliberately transforms it. The transformation can occur in concrete, perceivable objects such as spaces, objects, or processes, or in theoretical constructions such as lifestyle, or politically designed social structures.” The authors also mention that it relates both to the strategic sequence of actions (to